28 January 2009

School Boards Take Heed

One of the random articles that has come to my notice involves a geologist standing for election to the school board in Lawrence, Kansas.

Michael Pomes is a geologist, according to the article, for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and he has a daughter in the Lawrence school system. While the story in the Lawrence Journal World does not detail his position on the teaching of science, unless he's one of those rare geologists who is somehow swayed by the three-card Monte tricks of the intelligent design crowd, this is a good thing. His statement in the article is somewhat nebulous:


“I want to make sure that she has the opportunity to have the best education possible — the best teachers and the best facilities,” he said.

... but this doesn't sound, on the face of it, overtly alarming. Which, in turn, leads me to a question:

Is your local school board spouting any sort of nonsense with regard to curriculum? If yes, then how about getting involved? If you have children in that district, then it becomes not merely important, but crucial.

Yes, standing for any elected office takes time and effort. But these are the bodies on which the trouble with education, and the incursion of unreason into eduation begins to start, thanks to the decentralised nature of educational policy in the United States.

If you're in Lawrence, and can shed any further light on any issues that might be cropping up in this school board election, please drop me a line or leave a note in the comments. I'd be interested to know how a geologist enters into the mix.

27 January 2009

Transference of Addiction

From the things that make you say: "I beg your pardon" file comes this story in the BBC Magazine section.

The headlines "Crystals versus Christ" caught my eye immediately, because I was hoping for a story about mineralogists. No such luck.


At the Mind Body Spirit Fair, held in Telford last autumn, you could consult a clairvoyant, purchase psychic healing, or stock up on healing crystals. You could also, if you wanted, talk to Mark Berry.


Mark is a Christian missionary - although he doesn't like the word much - to Telford, sent there by the Church of England and the Church Mission Society, because Telford has one of the lowest church-going populations in Britain. He's set up a small church, with about a dozen members, which meets in his small house on a modern estate.


When Mark first arrived in Telford, three-and-a-half years ago, he said he wanted to connect with people who were "spiritual but not religious". It's an interesting phrase, and one you hear a lot nowadays.



I love how the writer says that this exponent of missionary zeal "arrived" in Telford, in Shropshire, as though he had a difficult time getting there. Perhaps he took a wrong turning from the M54? But more to the point, why choose Telford in the first place - there are lots of places in the UK with low church attendance - why pick on them? The only things I can think of in relation to Telford are A.E. Housman, the Iron Bridge, and a line in a Fry and Laurie sketch, years ago.

Ah... here's a clue: it's apparently the least religious town in Britain. Frankly sounds a nice place. But not if you're a follower of the big bullies in the sky...


But three years into his mission in Telford, Mark Berry's core community is not spiritual-but-not-religious recruits, but already-committed Christians who use his gatherings to deepen and provide a new perspectives on their faith.


Here's the thing: if you changed over from being all healy-feely and stopped rabbiting on about how they could feel the energy and similarly bollocks-infused drivel, and you went to being all christ-y jebus-y and good, supposedly, tell me: what change did you really make? You changed from one ancient nonsense to another (winking at you, Connie Morris), so how did you really make a change?

I have to give the writer credit, though, where it's due, for his closing line:


There may be a hole in people's lives, but there's not a great deal of evidence that it is God-shaped.


Abso-bloomin'-lutely. Isn't this what we've been trying to say all along?

25 January 2009

Truth, Fiction, and Perception in Discovery

Apologies in advance, this entry's going to be somewhat, well, "meta", as the kids say. In other words, internally and culturally self-referential, picking up several threads and assuming that you already know what's going on. I'll put up some background soon.

In a recent Skepticality podcast (by the time of this writing, it's no longer the latest), Swoopy spoke with Maria Maltseva, a Seattle-based skeptic and lawyer who decided, following a challenge issued by previous visitors to the Discovery Institute's Centre for Science and Culture, arranged her own visit to the Evil Empire TM.

The interview gave us a lot of food for thought - much to chew over, as it were. Ms Maltseva takes great pains to stress both her skeptical and pro-evolutionary credentials, and the fact that she was able, without subterfuge or deception, to gain entry to and meeting time with members of the Discovery Institute's CSC staff. I don't have any reason to believe that Ms Maltseva was in fact a mole working under deep cover for the Disco, but something about this interview just didn't sound right to me. I'll try to explain.

I'll start by saying that no, I've never been to Seattle to try to cadge a visit... not yet, anyway. So I don't have personal experience to compare with Ms Maltseva's description of her visit. And there were some fascinating revelations to be had, certainly. The revelation of the existence of "secret laboratories", of which there are apparently two in the Seattle area, in which CSC scientists are attempting to build proof for intelligent design was cause for some mirth. I suspect that the reason why they don't let anybody in is because anyone who understands laboratory apparatus would take a few minutes, look around, and then start asking some very awkward questions. In my mind, these laboratories look like something out of the old Ealing comedy classic, The Man in the White Suit, starring a young Alec Guinness. It would be a cinematic take on what a laboratory is supposed to look like. It would be neither functional nor real. That's just a guess, of course.

Also of interest was that we were reminded of the fact that the so-called Centre for Science and Culture is but one part of the Discovery Institute's policy thrust. Another is the Traffic wing, which, apparently, has received funding from the Gates Foundation to sort out the nightmare of Seattle's antiquated roadways and infrastructure. To some, the patronage of this notably liberal charity is at odds with the Disco's image as a bastion of nouveau Evangelical conservative fundamentalist lackeydom. But perhaps it just speaks to desperation not to spend pointless hours trying to get home?

Perhaps the most astounding statement came at the end, when Ms Maltseva discussed a group audition that she arranged, where she, Luskin, Smith, and Carruthers listened to the earlier edition of Skepticality on which Kate Holden and Tiana Dietz appeared.

Here are the things that were unbelievable about Ms Maltseva's reporting of that audition:


  1. The claim that the people of the Disco had never heard the podcast before. This is, on the face of it, blindingly ridiculous. Whatever else the Disco are, they are media-saavy and technologically aware. It does not take a lot of effort to set up a Google search. I refuse to believe that they had not heard this.

  2. The claim that the people of the Disco laughed good-naturedly at the recording. This speaks, to me, of stage management. History is littered with examples of inhuman monsters who could laugh good-naturedly, even at their own expense. It doesn't mean that they weren't seething and plotting your ugly demise on the inside.

  3. The claim that, upon hearing the venom with which the comtempt for the Discovery's CSC was expressed, they were moved to tears. Again, this speaks to me of stage management. It does so for the simple and obvious reason that if you are an organisation which has to undermine your opposition, wouldn't you do it by trying to appear more cuddly and vulnerable than you genuinely were?


Consider, for a moment, how things might have looked from the other side. Ms Maltseva gets off of the phone, having arranged her visit. What, if you want to make sure that you are in full damage control mode, would be the first thing that you would do? Well, I don't know about you, dear readers, as I'm sure that you are all unique and splendidly eccentric individuals in your own right, but I'll tell you what I would bloody well do: research.

And, on doing some research, you would read Ms Malkova's blog, and you might possibly class her as something of a sentimentalist. Not a bad thing, in and of itself, but which, in turn, would help you to figure out how to deflect some of the damaging criticisms that might be brought against you. Again, I'm playing the role of a devil's advocate here, assuming that, despite their public posture, the Disco is no more to be trusted than a Bush administration official extolling the virtues of privatising your own hurrican relief.

Are the denizens of the Disco human beings? Well, yes, of course, as far as we are aware, they must be. It seems unlikely that they are really an advance force of the armies of the planet Zog, or any other such improbable thing. But the more important question is this: are they capable of taking in the gullible? The answer to that question, we need only look at the roster of people who support them and their aims. We need only read their fund-raising materials. We need only listen to those who are secondarily and tertiarily taken in by their sophistry.

Those who work for the Centre for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, or whatever else they may wish to call themselves, are not people for whom intellectual dishonesty is a problem. This has been repeatedly demonstrated: by their behaviour with regard to the film Expelled and their wildly dissimilar reaction to Randy Olson's requests for interviews for A Flock of Dodos, to name just two examples. And it is for that reason, more than any other, that I do not feel that finding "common ground" with people and groups who hold a world view that is 180 degrees away from mine is either practical or possible. It may well be fine for some, and each and every one of you must make that choice for yourselves. I won't tell you what to do, I won't presuppose your acceptance of my view. You must make your own decisions for yourself. To think otherwise would be of a wrongness and an arrogance on my part that... well, it would smack of Disco-think. And it is neither my purpose nor my wish to make gains by adopting the dishonourable tactics of the opposition. That's the definition, I think, of a Pyrrhic victory.

So, at the end, I have to think that for whatever reason, Ms Maltseva drank too deeply of the Disco's hospitality. I was immediately suspicious of her descriptions of the people there, and their reactions to the earlier podcast where Tiana and Kate Holden called for the removal of the Disco. It was all a bit too neat. I think that she was carefully managed, spun, and wagged from start to finish. I don't say that this is her fault, or even that her effort was not a noble and valuable one.

It's just that, listening not to my irrational dislikes, nor to my desire to think the best of people, but rather by looking at the facts, I come to the conclusion that I just don't believe that reaching an accommodation with people who cannot be trusted to tell the truth serves any greater goal.

23 January 2009

Was Their Flood But a Trickle?

"Damn you, science. Can't we even keep our big mythical flood?" (shakes fist at lab coat on peg).

Or so seem to say creationists around the world, especially when the world produces research which flatly contradicts their view of history, geology, and life on earth.

One of the tenets claimed by so-called "young earth" creationists (or YECs) is bible literalism. That is to say, they claim that not only is everything in the bible literally true, but that it provides irrefutable scientific evidence of the creation of the world, and of its subsequent destruction by the Noachian flood, and of anything else that you could ever need to know in a science-y way. Building on the pioneeringly wrong-headed timetable constructed by the 17th century Bishop James Ussher, who determined that, based on biblical chronology, the earth was created at 9PM on the evening of 22 October 4004 BCE, which would have made it... a brisk autumn evening?

On the one hand, sitting down with the bible on one hand and a Big Chief tablet on the other is a pretty impressive feat, when you consider that no one had ever done so before (or, had they done so, they wisely binned the resulting calcuation). Comedic as it sounds, Ussher (called Primate of All Ireland, which just makes me laugh and I'm not really sorry about it) took a tool at his disposal and used it to try to find out how old the world was. Unfortunately, this leads YECs to claim that the world, everything in it, and the surrounding universe are less than ten thousand years old, having rather failed to grasp the concept of "moving with the times". They also maintain, unlike their close ideological brethren in the "intelligent design" camp, that the geologic record - that is, the history of the planet as recorded in the layers of rock around the planet - supports their view without ambiguity.

Usually, the "evidence" of this support is either a wild misinterpretation of available data, or a willful mis-reading of said same data, or a refutation of established parameters and constants in the universe (they simply adore, for example, claiming that the known constant of the speed of light has actually been actively changed by an interventionist deity, apparently with time on its hands); sometimes, they indulge in these three and others in various delightfully mendacious combinations. Radioactive decay? Magic man has changed the known decay rates. Rates of sedimentation? Er...

Yes. The rates of sedimentation, and the resulting fossilisation of a thousand million creatures: that's all down to the flood as well, if you're a YEC.

Unfortunately, in attempting to use their partially-grasped view of science, YECs have made some claims about evidence of past flooding. Specifically, they have said that this Great Flood would have left traces right around the world, making the bible story literally provable and true. From seashells on the tops of the Swiss Alps to the sedimentary layers which led James Hutton to pen the revolutionary, if fabulously unreadable Theory of the Earth, your common or garden YEC has a one-stop shop for answers, and no need to worry about any other pesky "evidence", "data", or "fact". As Robin Ince says, "magic man done it!"

However, the research from the Black Sea, which is considered a candidate source for some of the flood myths, quite possibly including the Noachian one, and as reported at insciences.org, tells a different story. Instead of finding traces of a massive, region-drowing flood, as flood geology-keen YEC types would suggest, the team from the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute have done something novel and looked at the data. And, in short, they suggest that the basin was not as profoundly flooded as original studies, congruent with the Noachian fable, suggested.


In the late 1990s, Columbia University researchers Bill Ryan and Walter Pitman examined the geological evidence and estimated the Black Sea level at the time of the flood was approximately 80 meters lower than present day levels. They suggested that the impact of a Black Sea flood could have forced the movement of early agriculturist groups to central Europe and established the story of Noah and his ark, as well as flood myths among other peoples.


Flood stories are common in the mythologies of nearly all peoples, not the least of which include the mythologies of the various desert wanderers. The Babylonians had one. The Greeks had one. In fact, here's a huge list of them, courtesy of TalkOrigins. They are, to paraphrase the very orange David Dickinson, "cheap as chips and twice as common".


To extend their record back in time beyond 6000 years, in 2007, Giosan and his colleagues drilled a new core to 42 meters depth at the mouth of the Danube River, the largest river emptying into the Black Sea. Their goal was to reconstruct the history of that part of the delta—before and after the flood—through an examination of the sediments. In analyzing the delta sediment from the new core as well as others taken in the region, Giosan’s team discovered fresh water deposits of the newly forming delta dating back approximately 10,000 years, subsequently overlaid by fine marine sediments, followed by the modern delta deposits.


And you can guess the result:


“We don’t see evidence for a catastrophic flood as others have described,” said Liviu Giosan, a geologist in the WHOI Geology and Geophysics Department.


The practical upshot of all of this? As with most science, it is progressive, rather than immediately conclusive. More data can lead to new and better conclusions. But at this moment in time, it looks as though - once again, and certainly not for the last time - the YECs have suffered another blow.

22 January 2009

My Mineral Boyhood

So I was an odd child, that's pretty much a given.

Recently, I got my hands on most of my collection of back issues of a certain mineralogical publication, a journal to which I had had a subscription since I was about fourteen. These journals had been in storage for about six years, ever since I realised that I didn't have room for them in either of the apartments that I used to inhabit. They were still in their neat black binders, individually sleeved, with typewritten (!) labels on the spines. As I started flipping through them, quite randomly, I realised something about myself, and about my mineral boyhood. It's not a wildly compelling story, but it explains something of who and what I am now, with reference to what I used to be.

My childhood was just a small slice of a far broader and more complex pattern of upbringing. Part of it had to do with the environment, on which we won't dwell much just now. Another part was natural inclination, and curiosity about the world. Still more was a quest for familial approval.

I was a shy, quiet child. I was also a bright child, if unfocused and undirected (a pattern which has persisted in my adult life). In fact, when I think about my early school days, it's with a combination of the angst of having few (or no) friends, and the uncertainty which that bred.

I don't make any bones about being clever. I was, I am, and that's an end of it. I try not to let it overrun my life, as it makes it difficult to keep friends if you're the one always noticing and correcting other people's "errors", but when I'm occasionally accused of pomposity or superiority or just "not fitting in well", then I realise that I'm failing, that the old defenses of humour and self-deprecation are coming down. And guess what? Sometimes, I just don't give a damn, as a nod to the child I was who suffered his share of abuse for being "the smart kid".

As a clever child, I didn't exactly have a lot of close friends, and not fitting in was an art that I perfected. Later in life, that becomes an advantage. Sometimes. When you're naturally awkward and not in a school that celebrates and encourages individual gifts, being bright doesn't tend to go so well. I had my own frames of reference, my own interests, and practically none of these jived with the world of American children in the late 70s and early 80s. I was interested in a lot of things. I kept a scrapbook of photos from the Voyager missions, clipped tidily from the newspapers (at the time, publishing a colour photograph, as they occasionally did, was a big deal). I liked rockets, and reading. And another good example of my non-conformity was my interest in rocks and minerals... geology, mineralogy, and paleontology.

I first learned about minerals and rocks as part of a scout project. Scouting was yet another instance of a common boyhood activity in which I didn't really manage to distinguish myself. I played baseball, but I was terrible at it. I also couldn't build one of those little pinewood cars to save my life. Tools were not my friend, and I was just as likely to break something with a hammer as I was to strike a nail in the prescribed fasion. But when it came to some of the requirements, like collecting, I was in good shape.


In this case, I was to make a collection, and I did, with some help - twelve different minerals in an egg box. There was a bit of quartz, a piece of blue-dyed quartzite, a small round nodule of obsidian of the kind now called an apache tear, a piece of rose quartz, a bit of labradorite... honestly, I can't remember what the others were. Probably some calcite, and apatite crystal, a sand spar or a barite rose... The collection soon grew to a second egg box. Then, a third. It was all part of seeking parental approval: my father and my grandfather were both collectors, and my great-uncle was a turquoise dealer in Arizona, so it was something that we could have in common. So my interest grew.

At some point, I started subscribing to one of the key publications in mineralogy, still influential today, the Mineralogical Record. This big step was followed by another: I was going to collect all of the back issues of the magazine. My subscription must have started in the early to mid 1980s, which meant that I had some rare issues to find, going all the way back to 1970. Eventually, I owned ever single one of them - and still do - using money that I'd earned mowing lawns in the summer. Of course, with my gap in subscribing from the late 90s until last year, guess what? There's a hole in the collection again, and it will be considerably more expensive to fill than it was when I was fifteen.

While most kids spent their Saturday mornings watching cartoons, I routinely spent time at "rock shows". Not only was there a local one, held yearly, but we travelled, to Omaha and Topeka and Lawrence and other locales, as I recall. If you've never been to a rock show, or, as they are more often billed, a "gem and mineral show", then it's an interesting exercise in social dynamics, or, at the very least, people-watching.

In those days, there were local rock shops as well, about a half-dozen of them, operated by grizzled old men who had been youthful when mineralogy and rock hounding had really taken off in the 1950s. Again, while other kids my age were focused on radio controlled cars, I had a rock hammer, and if I wasn't using it, we were going to rock shops. One of these, the recently demised Ace's Rock Shop, which used to be a fixture of the Westport district, it was run by a family of devoted lithophiles, although in the end, they were subsumed in the tide of nonsense which has overtaken popular rock hounding, that of the metaphysical, crystal-gazing, energy-sensing, omphaloskeptic idiocy which is loosely called "New Age" thinking. Though I preferred book shops, I'd go along to the rock shops happily enough. There was a certain magic in the neatly ordered display cases, the rows of hammers and chisels and goggles, the reference books and loupes. I think that all of those rock shops of my boyhood, like the old independent bookshops and small second-hand places, are long since gone.

Of course, there was also time in the field. Roadcuts, old quarries, hikes through various terrains when out for Sunday drives or visiting relatives: I spent a lot of time - through at least some of which I was bored, if I'm being honest - wandering around, looking at rocks. Whether it was looking at the remains of glacial deposits in Nebraska (and subsequently getting badly lost, in the days before GPS, driving round seemingly endless rural roads until finally stumbling on a small town after several hours and with low fuel remaining), or driving to sandstone quarries to hunt for fern fossils, or just walking along a gradient in a gravel pit and picking crinoid stems up off of the ground, there were many, many activities, and a lot of time spent out of doors. I learned, at least somewhat, how to read maps put out by various state Geological Surveys. When I did find things, it gave me a sense of accomplishment. In a field which was littered with things dropped by glaciers in their last retreat ten thousand years ago, for example, I saw a small reddish shape which looked like nothing more or less than discarded chewing gum. I picked it up anyway, and found that it was a small red garnet, which had probably travelled down from the Dakotas or Canada. And I found pockets of calcite, brachiopods, and other fossils... never have yet found a trilobite, though.

As my taste and - dare I say it - sophistication grew, so that soon, ordering minerals by post, I developed favourites and fancies for minerals from far distant places. I still have a soft spot for pyromorphite, a lead phosphate mineral found in the mining all around the world, which occurs in gorgeous clusters of barrel-shaped crystals. To me, minerals are still beautiful things.

Of course, with age came a rejection of childish things. Although I studied geology and the sciences at university, ultimately I took a degree in history. For a long time, although I kept up a superficial interest in the earth beneath my feet, I wasn't all that engaged with it; not like I had been. After many years, though, I've come back to relying on my knowledge of geology and my interest in the earth sciences, because it helps in the bigger battles against unreason, in which my humanist side demands me to take part.

Still, in a way, I miss all of the exuberance and fun of boyhood rambles, unfettered by the damned demands of adult life. My course through life and a declining interest in mineralogy has been mirrored in the larger world. If you search for "rock shops" in the Kansas City metro area... well, there aren't many. Mainly, it's just the Beagle, a place on north Oak called Clevenger's, and, from personal experience, I know that there's one small case in that toyshop in Brookside. Is that the marker of a hobby on the decline? If so, it would make me a bit sad. So now, ironically, I'm trying to foster an interest in the very subject about which I have such contradictory feelings, to expose a new generation of children to the interesting things to be found in the mineral world.

My mineral boyhood in some ways shaped the person that I am, and, oddly enough, that doesn't bother me as much as it used to.

21 January 2009

Tea or Coffee?

If you answer that question "tea", then this video is for you.

As most readers will know, I'm not typically the "share the funny video" type. Perhaps occasionally I would do, but it's not my raison d'être. For this, though, I make an exception. The song is "A Cup of the Brown Stuff" (well, that's more or less the title) by DJ Elemental. And no, before you ask, music in this style isn't generally my cup of tea (get it?)...




Most of the lyrics are here, if you're having difficulty following. A hi-def version, if it works for you, is here.

This track was featured at the end of the most recent Tin Dog Podcast (because he's run out of Doctor Who theme remixes to play, it seems), and it came on just as I pulled into the driveway. I stayed in the car until I had finished listening, then hurried inside to put it on again, and I'm still laughing.

Great stuff. Tip of the ski pole, of course, to the Tin Dog. Be seeing you, and all...

This Just In: Still Probably No God on British Buses (Film at Eleven)

Many of a non-theistic bent will be relieved to learn that the British Humanist Association's "There's Probably No God..." bus campaign has faced down its first challenge (which I previously mentioned here), following a decision by the Advertising Standards Authority.

BBC News is reporting that the ASA "concluded the campaign was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence".

The number that I find really interesting, though, is this one: "The Advertising Standards Authority said it assessed 326 complaints."

I'd like to see this in context of the normal number of complaints about advertisements. It seems rather high. Did Mary Whitehouse manage to generate this number of complaints in the heyday of her campaign against television? And doesn't it just show that (a) for some among the religious, even the expression of a mild doubt is hugely "offensive", (b) they can't feel very secure in their position if they're threatened and feeling "offended" by a sign on the side of a bus, and (c) many people need to find hobbies. Anything would do, really. What about needlework? I've heard that it's both challenging and rewarding...

20 January 2009

Selling a Butterfly

Somehow I feel that I'm not going to do my ultimate topic justice.

The radio is filled with the news, even early. There's a growing crescendo of activity, on this Inauguration Day.

It's a good day to be in America, one hopes. A good day to celebrate the end of an error, and what will, I have every hope, be the beginning of a period of repair, of reconciliation, and of putting things back in order, the way that they are meant to be.

Congratulations, President Obama, Vice-President Biden, to you and your families, and to us all. And the best of luck to you.

And I'll always remember where I was listening to this particular historic speech. Alone in a science store, having just finished selling a butterfly.

19 January 2009

The Immunity from Reason and Its Consequences

Some time back, I once again entered the Seed magazine essay competition, more out of misplaced optimism than anything else. This year, somehow, I found that I had only a day in which to compose my essay, owing to having mis-read the closing date for entries. I'd been making notes and draught versions for several weeks, but it still wasn't enough time.

Since I'm having some trouble finishing other entries at the moment, I thought I'd post the essay contest entry, only slightly edited (to remove the mistakes which I am sure I made in haste but doubtless didn't impress the judges). Really, it also fits in with my occasional series, concerning the Richness of Science and the Poverty of the Irrational too, so you may want to read it in that vein. Either way, enjoy.



The Immunity from Reason and Its Consequences

We live in a time of plagues.

The word "plague" itself conveys a certain uncontrolled, unreasoning enemy - something that lurks in the dark, something that must be feared rather than understood. And that is the nature of the opposition that we face which dictates that we should fear the darkness, because we have some idea of what the darkness brings with it. To say "plague" conjures moody images in the mind: of undertakers tolling mournful bells, of whole families struck down in a moment, of ghastly lingering death and dark-shrouded pits filling with the bodies of the dead. There is a distant sound of shovels in the lantern light, a grim counterpoint to the mournful human sounds of the still-living, and the dying.

When I was a child, and first reading about the re-emergence of bubonic plague in London in the 17th century, these images were burned into my memory. I read about the plague in the old set of encyclopedias that belonged to my family, a set dating from the 1960s, which also contained the seemingly magical knowledge that thanks to the advent of modern medicine and science, the diseases which once were a threat to so many were now preventable. As a child, I was innoculated against many of those - smallpox, rubella, measles, mumps. I needn't have feared polio any more than I needed to fear the Black Death - bubonic plague - because hard-working men and women had dedicated their lives to eradicating these illnesses, and I was their benefactor. It wasn't due to magic, nor to prayer, nor to purifications fires, bouquets of carefully-chosen herbs, nor to special pleadings and imprecations hurled at a deity. It was due to research in laboratories and the development of medicine.

The biological plagues of the modern world are many, and one recent suggestion has been to say that, if global climate change is not checked, new plagues, formerly contained to a single specific region may be unleashed upon much of the world.

We consider, though, that plagues have been beaten in the past. Many of the diseases which have terrorized humanity for millennia have been all but wiped out. Others can be readily treated. How did that happen, in all of the laboratories and universities and research facilities? How did we gain such insight? Quite simply, we applied several simple notions: that everything which happens can be measured, that it can be made sense of, and that the cumulative body of evidence also increases our understanding of the natural world. There are natural laws, and everything obeys them - no exceptions. If we see something that appears to be breaking the law, then we must determine - is our observation wrong, or is the law wrong?

The plagues that we face, however, are not merely plagues in bacteriological sense, although those too continue to survive in significant numbers, but figurative plagues - assaults on many facets of our lives. For recently, these other plagues have descended upon the institutions that once fearlessly sought to combat them.

Imagine being told, if you were a professor of geology, that it doesn't matter what you say about the history of the Earth, just as long as you never claim that the planet is four and a half billion years old. But the foundation of understanding how the Earth has changed over time demands a timetable, and you can't construct a meaningful timetable if you can't say when things began.

And imagine that, if you were a professor of astronomy, that your subject must never be to speculate on the origins of the universe, for those questions have already been solved by contemplation and devoted prayer. Oh, and while you're at it, don't ask what answer was given, because it's none of your affair.

Or imagine being instructed, as a professor of biology, that you can't discuss the fundamental tenet of biology, that being evolutionary theory, because although it has been well and thoroughly tested, it conflicts with someone's imaginary view of the universe. Instead, you must teach a jumped-up version of theology masquerading as science.

These are examples of unreason. This happens when a belief, upheld by nothing more than the faith of the believer, is given precedence over reason. Not only are these "believers" everywhere, they are on the rise. In Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal recently decided to actively sign into law a bill that supports the teaching of intelligent design, despite the fact that he holds a degree in biology. Other states too have encountered attempts to pass bills that would require the teaching of “alternatives to evolutionary theory” – this despite the fact that these so-called alternatives are no more about science than they are about education. This is a charade, the first step away from the path which humanity has been traveling on since the Enlightenment, even since the Renaissance.

How then do we overcome unreason? Last year, Seed's essay contest focused on science literacy, and simply put, the answer is in that question. Any of us who count ourselves as friends of science and reason, whether we be working scientists, educators, writers, or simply gifted amateurs, must be vocal and vigilant. We must ensure that we make clear what science does – and what it does not do. Science does not provide a prescription for how to live your life, for a moral code by which you should live. But it does give you the framework for making intelligent, well-informed decisions. Science is a method and a body of knowledge, and the difference between a belief and science is that science, in light of new information, of new evidence at its disposal, can change to accommodate that evidence. It teaches us how to stand against the plague of ignorance, of the immunity from reason. Belief, by its very nature, does not change in the face of new evidence, because it is allowed an escape clause: belief is buttressed by faith, and, to the mind of the faithful, faith trumps evidence. Science rightly tells us that this is absurd.

Scientist and broadcaster Carl Sagan, in his landmark television series Cosmos, provocatively titled the final episode of those thirteen memorable hours "Who Speaks for Earth?" His answer to the question is straightforward: “We speak for Earth”. Not only is the answer important, but the question, unique in the history of our world, is just as vital. As a species, human beings are unlike any other life on earth that has gone before us. Having developed a culture, literacy, and science and technology, human beings have the capability not only of asking "which of us speaks for Earth, and for the future?" but of asking the question "what shall we say?" What shall we pass on: our learning, or our plagues?

Around us is a sea of gibberish: of irrational, slipshod, and incoherent beliefs, against which sciences stands with quiet strength. I hesitate to describe science as ennobling, but in a very real way, that is what it is - the noblest game, the very best of human pursuits. And if we want to have a science to hand on to future generations, then we must be constantly aware not only of how other people understand what we mean when we talk about science, we must teach it to them too.

16 January 2009

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory

So, have you read the late, lamented, and much-missed Stephen Jay Gould's magnum opus?

No, neither have I. Not yet, anyway. But I my copy from the library now - although I suspect that this is one that I'm going to have to buy, for the simple reason that I am going to read it. Every last blooming word of it - that's a lot fo words.

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is a vast, terrifying, giant brick of a book. It's a bit like looking at Tolstoy's War and Peace (come to think of it, I never finished that one either). It's daunting. It's intimidating.

It also looks like really, really good fun.

And there's one other good thing about it: you can be damn sure that you won't encounter many - if, indeed, any - ID-o-bots, Disco-ites, or yucky YECs who have read it.

So join with me. Get your copy today, and dive in. Help drive away the darkness of ignorance by reading along with me, and for my part, I'll have my review ready sometime in 2010...

Silly Season News

Well, everyone should have seen this coming.

When I opened my browser this morning, this story on the Beeb's news site caught my eye: Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus.

If you've been keeping up with the news, the British Humanist Association, aided by Professor Richard Dawkins has launched a wildly successful campaign in Britain to put this slogan on a large number of buses in a variety of British cities: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." The campaign has also spread to the United States, where in Washington DC it provoked such consternation that even the generally reliable National Public Radio devoted a segment of their Talk of the Nation programme to its impact. (And if I can stomach listening to the rebroadcast, I'll discuss that one later, as it was irksome on several levels.)

However, in Britain, a "Christian bus driver" (seriously, that's how they describe him) from Southampton called Ron Heather "responded with "shock" and "horror" at the message and walked out of his shift on Saturday in protest."

It gets better. The story goes on (in case you don't want to click through):


First Bus [the company which operates the buses] said it would do everything in its power to ensure Mr Heather does not have to drive the buses.



This is going to be a bit difficult, one imagines, since his job description includes the words "bus driver".

Previously, a man called Stephen Green has sought to have the BHA's campaign stopped by claiming to the Advertising Standards Authority that the campaign was in violation of their statutes because it could not be proven. As I and others have pointed out in the past and would like to quickly do again, when anyone mentions "proof" with relation to any deity, the idea of "proof" is probably not a thread on which they want to pull too firmly. Pulling tends to unravel your nice warm faith-cardigan into a pile of just so much woolly thinking.

It's also a good idea to remember the origins of this campaign, as chronicled here. Specifically, this quote:


The campaign was devised by comedy writer Ariane Sherine.


She was inspired to seek donations after objecting to a set of Christian advertisements on a bus.


When people went to a highlighted website address, they were told that whose who rejected God were condemned to spend all eternity to "torment in Hell".


Ms Sherine said she sought donations for a "reassuring" counter-advertisement.


She said: "I think there have been a lot of people out there who have been looking at evangelical advertisements and not saying anything and thinking that these advertisements have been approved and just shrugging it off.


"Now finally they have an opportunity to express this feeling of exasperation."



It's for reasons like this that atheists, agnostics, humanists, and all the rest are becoming increasingly vocal. Some religious people - and not all of them, I hasten to say - seem to think that it's within their purview as "a good Xian" or whatever else to tell people that because they don't subscribe to the Xian's own particular brand of fairy stories, that they're going to be tormented and made to suffer for ever. Not only that, but they'll say it with a smile. They don't just say it to us, either. They say it to our children, our friends, our family. It has happened to me. It's happened to all of us.

I wonder how moved to protest Mr Heather and Mr Green were when the equally unprovable claim that non-Xians would be "condemned to spend all eternity to "torment in Hell"" was made?

So perhaps, just perhaps, if ten, fifty, or a hundred of people like Mr Heather and Mr Green suddenly think: "wow, maybe I should just enjoy my life after all", then the world might be an ever so slightly better place, for all of us.

15 January 2009

The Genius of Paranoid Fantasy: In Memoriam, Patrick MacGoohan

"I am not a number, I'm a free man!

As many of you will no doubt have seen by now, Patrick MacGoohan, star of the iconoclastic and seldom-rivalled 1967 television classic, The Prisoner, has died, aged 80.

I haven't been a life-long fan of The Prisoner, like some people. In fact, I only watched through the whole series first about four years ago, although I've known of it for decades. It first aired four years before I was born - people one or two generations older than me remembered watching it (and The Avengers, another obvious choice for 1960s cult favourite, along with Star Trek and Doctor Who) when it was first broadcast, both in the UK and the US. However, The Prisoner (as you will learn from it's fansite, here) is so completely unlike those other three programmes as to be a separate animal entirely.

The story behind the show's origins is quite simple: growing weary of the character of John Drake, who he portrayed in Danger Man, MacGoohan proposed a new programme, consisting of seven episodes, telling the story of an imprisoned agent who was being pressed for "information" by forces that he could not identify. The story would be further complicated by an almost complete lack of exposition regarding the character, known only as Number Six, himself - thus making it difficult to determine his own allegiances. Instead, we would know only a few essential facts:

Number Six drove through London to a secret location reached via an underground car park. There, after angrily confronting a man who was presumably an authority figure, he slams a paper on the man's desk and leaves. While we are treated to images of a sterile, mechanical system moving Number Six's photo to a file marked "Resigned", the man himself is returning to a London flat and packing, clearing intending to leave the country. However, sinister undertakers appear and gas Number Six, rendering him unconscious. When he awakes, he has arrived in The Village (filmed in the Welsh locale of Portmeirion). He is now a prisoner.

Each week, a different version of the story would be played out, involving a variety of players in the role of Number Two, the puppet controller of The Village, in which Number Six found himself trapped. Although the face of Number Two might change (and in some cases return: Leo McKern, the actor later best known for his portrayal of Rumpole of the Bailey, reprised the role several times), his goal was always the same, as spoken in the chilling voice over at the start of each week's installment: "Information". Number Two would demand to know why Number Six had resigned.

Number Six would invariably attempt to escape from the Village, on differing occasions by different means. These attempts were thwarted by Number Two and his minions, as well as by Rover, a sort of giant balloon which frankly grew on me as a sinister amanuensis. Additionally, the Village is heavily watched by a network of CCTV cameras (foreshadowing Britain's own current ill-conceived reliance on CCTV and its growth in other nations, notably the US), and is provided with a sort of culture of prisoners, in which the inhabitants of the Village, all apparently prisoners from various states (and possibly even various sides from the Cold War-era world), participate in bizarre rituals that mimic real world behaviours; village fêtes, communal duties, and sham participatory democracy. Yet there is no doubt that the Village is a prison, and that there are tortures to be endured if you are to fall foul of the authorities.

So successful was the original seven episode plot that the American network CBS demanded more episodes. In the end, seventeen stories were made. For what was in some ways a rush job to expand the original seven story arc into the number agreed upon, I think that nearly every episode is an amazing piece of work. In what is perhaps my favourite of the seventeen, "Hammer into Anvil", Number Six takes it on himself to become and avenging spectre, determined to drive the new Number Two to death or resignation himself after he drives a young woman to suicide. The repeated use of the motif from Georges Bizet's L'Arlésienne is so haunting in this episode that I listened to my copy for weeks after first watching this episode.

The series also boasts what is perhaps the most enigmatic finale ever put to film, the final episode "Fall Out". I wouldn't spoil the story here, but I will say that anyone viewing it the first time will inevitably either love it or utterly despise it.

The genius - and I do not use that word lightly - of The Prisoner was to take the paranoid fantasy of a spy and to make it plausible. You feel not only the claustrophobia of the Village, but you will delight at Number Six's escapes and be crushed when he is inevitably recaptured. You also begin to feel that the show is unusually prescient in the way that it details how it is possible to change ones perception of events, even to lie about information and therefore to control it. We've seen a lot of things reminiscent of the sense of impunity and entitlement of the forces at work in the Prisoner in a number of recent governments. We've also seen the use of secret and impenetrable prisons, although these have been conceived not with the charm of the series, but with the grimness of a totalitarian, Orwellian government (sorry for another over-used adjective, but genuinely appropriate here).

Sadly gifted with precognition, or just good fun? Yes, it's possible to read too much into what is ultimately just entertainment, I know. Nevertheless, I'm going to clear some time in my calendar and settle in to view the series once again, and to reflect on the man who made it happen, the late and sorely missed Patrick MacGoohan. It might not be the best use of my time, strictly speaking, but it will certainly be enjoyable, which is what escapist fare is all about, isn't it?

14 January 2009

So Is This the Definition of Parochial?

I was reading around various blogs and stumbled across this map... and it's stunning to see just how little travelled I am.


visited 13 states (26%)
Create your own visited map of The United States.

My world map looks slightly better:


visited 5 states (2.22%)
Create your own visited map of The World

...but largely it looks better because the whole of Canada counts even if you've only been to Ottawa. Which I have, so it does.

I can't explain it really. I don't really consider myself to be a narrow, untravelled, unobservant, slow-witted, heavily-browed sort of person. If I were to defend myself against imaginary cries of "poseur!" and "fraud!", I'd say that many places in the US I've been more than once, and many times that I've travelled to different parts of different states. And there are many, many places on my list of "places to go, urgent". So what's the problem?

In my defense, for a long time (ten years) I was involved with someone who didn't really like to travel. That rather cuts in to your options, if the furthest that you drive is an hour distant. Fortunately, GHR is much more adventurous (and she's better travelled than I am to start with). We already have plans for Montana (well, if the dinosaur dig happens this year, there's no way you could stop me), Tennessee, and New England. Chicago, again, with a side dodge into Indiana, just to count another state. My new goal is to fill up that map, just like I filled in those maps of commemorative state quarter dollars (there went ten years of my life that I won't get back).

I was thinking about this subject partly in relation to Stephen Fry's DVD set and companion book, Stephen Fry in America, which just wandered through our door after an Amazon UK splurge (along with the "B" and "C" series of QI, on which more later). Fry, the dirty great show-off, visited every state in the US for his little documentary (which looks like it will be bloody wonderful, I'll give him that). Sure, he spends more time on the conspicuously pretty parts of the country, and therefore misses some of the more interesting locales (Hello, Stephen! Birthplace of jazz and... er... other things! Right here!). But I can forgive that. If I were travelling to England, for example, I certainly wouldn't spend my time in Scunthorpe. Or Slough. Or Essex. You see the point (with apologies to those three fine locales).

So in the meantime, do I have to pick a resolution with regard to travel? Fine. Travel more. Easy. Off to pack my bags.

13 January 2009

Encouraging Words

From the swearing in of Missouri's new Democratic Governor, Jay Nixon, yesterday:


"...This new economy requires a new day for Missouri.


"We'll turn this economy around by making Missouri a magnet for next-generation jobs.


"We'll invest in new technology. We'll inspire cutting-edge innovation. And we'll embrace science, not fear it.


-- St. Louis Business Journal, 12 January 2009 (page 2)

Nixon was speaking in context of the need for economic development in Missouri, and making the clear tie between new, lucrative, technologically and scientifically-based industries, and real and proper science education.

Naturally, my local NPR station (the one that I don't like, but have to listen to because I haven't yet set up an antenna to bring in the good one), reported that Governor Nixon would already face opposition with regard to the development of life-saving stem cell research from groups who equate such research with murdering the unborn. And rest assured, that's just the first in a long line of groups of anti-science loons which are bound to creep out of the woodwork like... well, like so many creeping things.

There's a Latin motto on the official Seal of the State of Missouri: "salus populi suprema lex esto", which is more or less: "the will well-being of the people shall be the supreme law". It is up to us in Missouri who understand the difference between knowledge and darkness to fight this sort of anti-science nonsense, and to demonstrate our will. It will be up to an organisation like a possibly reconstituted Missouri Citizens for Science... but more on that soon.

In the meantime, brace yourselves, and be grateful for a governor who understands that science points to new opportunities and new futures, and that any other view can only direct us backwards, to a time when the angry sky-god was in his heaven, the earth was the centre of the universe, when we walked or rode horses everywhere and most illnesses meant that we just bloody died.

Time to stop talking and start doing, everyone.


EDIT 23-01-2009: Fortunately for me, Latin is largely a dead language, or people might have caught me out on "salus", which as noted above, is "health" or "well-being" or "welfare", not "will" as I hastily wrote - giving myself the benefit of the doubt, I think that I was aiming for "well-being" originally, and just didn't get all the words out. "Will" in that sense would, my dictionary reliably informs me, be in the "volo", "velle", "volui" family. Any Latin scholars out there, feel free to chime in.

07 January 2009

A Quick Question

Of course, you'd expect it of the BBC.

You'd think that, of all the biased left-wing liberal good and pure and true media, they'd be the ones to have big plans for programming devoted to the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. And they do. It's here, and it's called Darwin Season 2009. In big bold letters. Frankly, it looks like it will be really good, too.

But that's the Beeb. Where's the American analogue? Because looking around, I don't see any big celebrations and special websites. Sure, PBS still has an Evolution section on their site, if you search for it. Yet, in a nation which purports to be the most advanced in the world, there's no single, coherent campaign in the media to raise awareness or even just review the fundamental tenets of a foundational principle of science, which every single high school student should have read in their required biology class? Or did I miss it?

It's not good enough, American media. Not anywhere remotely in the vicinity of "good enough".

A New Resource for Children's Evolution Education

It's an exciting year in science, and I've been looking for materials for the Beagle that might help expand some minds while aiding our bottom line. I've already made a list of evolution books (to which I'm still adding), but I was dreading trying to do the same for children's books. With certain exceptions, children's books and I have just never gotten on. Now, needing to find any available children's titles about Darwin, evolution, and related subjects, I was afraid that I would be very much on my own.

Thanks to Dr Kate Miller at Charlie's Playhouse, not only am I not alone, but I have a list of ninety books to look at.

If you're a parent or an educator, or even just concerned about properly scientific educational toys for children, you should take a look at Charlie's Playhouse. Not only do they sell some interesting products (the Ancient Creature Cards look very cool), but Dr Miller also maintains a blog and provides a list of resources for parents and educators.

If you need materials to help educate children about evolution, then take a look!



Tip of the ski pole to... er... well, embarassingly, I can't remember the site on which I first found the link to Dr Miller's site. When I do, I'll put it up here. It was probably that blasted Pharyngula again...

06 January 2009

The Continuing Retreat from Reality's Onslaught

I've recently finished Dr Kenneth Miller's book from mid-2008, Only a Theory, in which he - once more, with feeling - comes out and properly savages the Intelligent Design crowd. But, despite having had to deal first-hand with the legal ramifications of ID (which is more than, for example, William Dembski or Steven Meyer have ever done - at least, not at Dover), Dr Miller's book has a hopeful tone to it. He isn't interested in shutting the door on good debate, or on destroying all religion. He's merely insistent that science be left to its own devices, which have worked very well for the past 200 years, thank you very much.

Naturally, who has emerged from the shadows to tax Dr Miller and his swanky "fact-based argument" with his nipping incisors? Yes, Sir Casey of Luskin, Attack Mouse of Ye Noble Knyghtes of Discouveree. (I hear that they live high in a tower in yon distant village of Seattle... perhaps in that 'Space Needle' we hear so much about? Erm... perhaps not).

D'you know how sometimes you hear people talking as though they were still fighting various wars of the past? Pick practically any war in history, and there will be someone who still takes it personally. Which is understandable for those wars which fall in the realm of Living Memory, but even I have managed to get over the Battle of Milvian Bridge, so I don't see why everyone else can't too. Well, despite it being more than three years since Intelligent Design was shown the door and asked to return the towels that it had nicked from the hotel, Mr Luskin appears to still be fighting the Battle of Dover.

Of course, reliving old conflicts as a manner by which to while away the slow trickle of the years is anybody's right. Attempting to rewrite history by employing every deceptive and devious canard imaginable, however, is not.

The Disco's answer to the Dover decision came out in a short, bitter book called Traipsing into Evolution, co-authored by Sir Casey and other Disco notables. Sadly I don't have it to hand, and have only a few notes from what I managed to read before it was due back (stupid idea of mine, thinking I'd be able to read it while the kids were on holiday and there were toys to be put together), but most of what I remember is the tone of the book. My notes even say: "imagine how differently this book would have been written had the DI won!" The exultation and euphoria would have been so thick that you might have served it on scones with jam. The commensurate sulkiness of the volume as a result of the loss of the legal challenge is proportionately inflated.

Recently, however, in battling the ghosts and the demons which he seems to see all around him, Mr Luskin has started to go after Dr Miller, stating, in part:


But an analysis of Miller's arguments demonstrates that he refuted Behe in no way whatsoever, and that in fact it was Behe who refuted Miller at trial, although Judge Jones ignored Behe's testimony. Miller continues (I am told) to go around lecturing on this topic, claiming that the blood-clotting cascade of lower vertebrates demonstrate that Behe was wrong and that the blood-clotting cascade is amenable to explanation by Darwinian evolution. Like many Darwinist claims of refutation of Behe, this one is based on smoke and mirrors.


-- Evolution News & Views (WARNING: Links to the Disco!), 24 december 2008

You don't really have to read the rest of it, but it makes for a good exercise in playing "spot the mendacity". And the "(I am told)" is a textbook example of how to be parenthetically catty.

I've formed a mental impression of Dr Miller as a man who is rather difficult to annoy. Really, I have no idea if this is an accurate impression, it's just the sense of the man that I get from his writing and the various interviews with him which I've had the pleasure of viewing or auditing. But it seems that, at long last, Sir Casey has well and truly narked Dr Miller. Normally, the latter doesn't enter into the blogosphere (or at least, he doesn't seem to have been assimilated by the Seed Magazine Collective yet...) however, he now has indulged in a long post, courtesy of Carl Zimmer over at the Loom. And Dr Miller's posting is... well, you just have to read it. Go on. Read it now. Take a bit, then come back. I can wait.

[Pauses. Imagines some light music. Nibbles a biscuit and pours another cup of tea.]

Ah. That was fun, wasn't it? I believe that, in the youthspeak of today, what Dr Miller just administered is known as "a spanking". With a dirty great cricket bat.

I have a question, which I pose in full and certain hope of honest answers. If you believe in intelligent design, on what are you basing your faith? Because, honestly, just between us, I won't breathe a word to anyone, I promise... it isn't science, is it? And it has nothing to do with science, has it? It's everything to do with control. It's back to the same tiresome old fundamentalist schtick of telling other people how they can live their lives, isn't it?

So why do we care? Why is this important to someone who, for example, works in a field completely divorced from science and technology? I'll try to give my own imperfect and halting answer.

Do you care about truth? Do you care about growing old in a nation that still has enough sense to keep its machines running and its infrastructure standing, to continue to develop new medicines, new answers to problems, and new fixes to the things that previous generations got wrong?

If you do, then you're going to want science to be around, unfettered, fit, and ready to have a bash at whatever ails you, us, a nation or a world.

Because honestly, if you're left to relying on prayer, then you really haven't got one.




[With thanks to the blog Life, Craftiness, and Everything else, which to my bemusement had exactly the mouse image that I was hoping for. Thank you, and please don't be cross.]

04 January 2009

The Definition of "Shame"

As I've mentioned before, reading the garbage put out by the Discovery Institute is something of a hobby of mine. I check the various websites fairly regularly, I get their emails, and I listen to the podcasts. I'm not an expert on their tricks or tactics, but I've learned a little. Which is to say, I've learned more than enough about how they work to find that it's difficult for them to surprise me.

Having said that, I have never, never seen anything as outrageous as this before.

It begins with a piece of mail.

In a fundraising letter dated 11 December 2008, the Discovery Institute, an IRS-registered 501(c)3 non-profit organisation, has used the "case" of a young man named Jesse Kilgore as its central theme. Mr Kilgore, a 22-year old New Yorker, apparently died by violence on 7 October 2008. The cause was apparently a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Let me be clear here: I am the first to say that it is catastrophic and tragic when anyone, never mind someone so young, takes their own life. For that matter, unnecessary deaths are tragic and wasteful, and no one, but no one, wishes them on anyone. My sympathies are with Mr Kilgore's family and friends. That's the decent thing to do, feel, and say.

I also understand fully the desire to seek a cause, to place blame, should there be any to place. I'm going to trot out a line that I would normally not use: as a parent, I fear for the death of my children, just as I, as a husband, fear for the death of my wife. As a parent, then, I get it. A child (albeit a grown one) has died, and that's cause for mourning and despair.

What I don't get, though, is what the Discovery Institute and people who represent themselves as the family and friends of Mr Kilgore have done. They have created, woven, a narrative. And in that narrative, they have blamed a biology teacher at the two-year college which Mr Kilgore attended, along with Professor Richard Dawkins and his book, The God Delusion, for this unfortunate youth's death. The story goes something like this (and here I am generalising the narrative, to conserve time and space):

Young man with strong, Christian faith goes off to secular college. Young man apparently attempts to take issue with teaching in biology class, because he is challenged by his teacher to read The God Delusion. Young man reads the book (which he hides from his parents under his mattress), and finds that he loses his faith. Young man chronicles all of these events, including his increasing despair, on his blog, but then, on the night on which he dies, he asks a friend to delete his account. Young man then kills himself. When his father begins to ask questions, he is told by friends of the claim that his son killed himself due to reading TGD, and through no other reason.

Pretty appalling, right? In this day and age, however, were this version of events to be true, I'd expect to find more primary source material to back up this narrative. But that's where things have turned out to be somewhat more difficult than you might expect.

So far, I have found one link to a story that has even a remote whiff of credibility around it, a short piece in a local paper's online site. But I've found neither follow-up, nor an obituary which other organisations might have used as their source. Granted, that indicates nothing. There are still newspapers without online editions, and there are also instances when no obituary is written, or there is a limit to the length of time during which it appears online. I know all of that.

What gives this story its odd feeling, though, are the following curious facts:


  1. There don't appear to be any active links, either to Mr Kilgore's blog (which it is said was deleted by a friend the night of his death, according to ID: the Future from 16 December 2008), nor to a news report of his death, except for those which appear nearly two months later. These sites include the execrable World Net Daily, Uncommon Descent, and the Discovery Institute's various organs and tentacles.

  2. This story appeared on the Disco's podcast, ID: the Future ("now with extra mendacity!"), apparently in order to neatly buttress the fundraising letter.

  3. More nebulously, everything about this story has a hearsay quality to it. With no paper trail, with no records to which to refer and only secondary sources with no attribution, the issue is clouded in a suspicious manner.


Again, I don't doubt that there is a family out there who is mourning a son, and that at the end of a year and the beginning of the next, that reality must be incredibly painful.

What I doubt is that the paragons of virtue over at the Disco were anything other than gleeful at the opportunity - any opportunity - to cast Professor Dawkins in the role of a devil, of "the devil's disciple" pulling his first soul into "hell". I don't doubt that they chose this human tragedy, however much of it be true, as their new cause célèbre, their clarion call to stand against the forces of darkness which they feel are allayed against them, because it neatly fit the story that they are trying to fabricate about science, about naturalism, and about what it has to say in the modern world.

If there is any good news to be gleaned from this delightful piece of direct mail, it is that they may have inadvertently undermined any future claims that they might wish to make that Intelligent Design is not religion in disguise. As John West says in the letter:


"What happened to Jesse makes me angry, because contrary to the pseudo-scientific claims of Darwinists like Dawkins, modern science does not point to atheism. In fact, a growing number of scientific discoveries are supportive of faith in God. The fine-tuning of the laws of physics, intricate molecular machines inside the cell, the digital information encoded in our DNA - all of these discoveries proclaim the truth that life is the product of intelligent design. Of course, these scientific findings do not "prove" that God exists, but the do provide powerful evidence that faith in God is consistent with the facts - contrary to the claims of Darwinists like Dawkins.


"Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture exists to support, defend, and promote the work of scientists who are challenging Darwin's theory of unguided evolution by finding positive evidence for intelligent design throughout nature.


"Our efforts were never more needed than they are now. Next year marks the bicentennial of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of his book On the Origin of Species. Darwinian atheists like Dawkins are going into overdrive trying to hijack these anniversaries to spread their gospel of atheism..."



I don't know about you, but those three paragraphs seem like a huge, vast admission not only of the true purpose of the Disco, but of how terrified they are that they will lose any ground that they might have gained in recent years as the anniversaries in 2009 bring public attention back to the real science, and away from their churlish inventions.

The Discovery Institute is not interested in science. They do not care one whit for your life, or mine, or how we might one day be saved by advances in research, by new developments in any one of a hundred fields. They are interested solely in ensuring that the "truth", as they perceive it to have been revealed by an ancient and demonstrably erroneous book is forced upon you and me at every possible juncture. They believe in only one thing understood by science: in a simple machine known as a Wedge. Along the way, they will exploit anyone, and anything, that they feel will give them an advantage in their doomed attempts to be relevant.

And that I will call what it is: cynical, crass, digusting, vile opportunism.

They should be ashamed.



Tip of the ski pole to Liz over at Kansas Citizens for Science who took the trouble to email me about this, reinforcing my resolve to write about it after I received the letter in the post. Please read her post on this subject too, it's very thorough and attacks the issues from a slightly different point of view than mine.

03 January 2009

The Culture Vulture Hops the Rail

In my ongoing effort to prove that I am not sick, GHR and I went to the Nelson today, to see their special exhibit Art in the Age of Steam. It didn't disappoint.

I've always been a fan of trains. In fact, two of my favourite films, Brief Encounter and The Titfield Thunderbolt both revolve around trains (both were shown at the Nelson as a part of an accompanying film series). As a boy, I had a poster on my bedroom wall of a tree-covered mountain in autumn, with a train snaking along the hillside in the foreground. At that age, I was thrilled to ride on short trips on Amtrak once or twice. I remember driving down by the railway line with my family when I was young, and parking on a long-since unused loading platform to watch trains go past. I loved watching the endless procession of numbers on the various cars, so much so that it now makes me slightly sad when I see trains defaced by "artists" (although I have to admit that I enjoyed the irony, when watching a train pass the other day, of the graffito which read "Attack all trains"). When I was young and casual vandalism was not the accepted norm, there was a mystery, a pageantry, even, about those cars, and wondering where they might be going, where they might have been. Of course, in those days, ADM didn't own every bloody one, either.

The exhibition, located in the Nelson's posh new exhibit space, consists of a variety of artistic artefacts, drawn from the National Gallery, the Museé d'Orsay, the Tate, and a variety of American sources, including a few from the Nelson's own collection. The result is a comprehensive view of the art of the railway, from the 1830s up into the 1950s.

That the Impressionists were fascinated by the interruption of the French countryside by the damnable regularity of the railways is well known, as is the fact that artists like Monet, Manet, and Caillebotte made it nostalgically beautiful. That Thomas Hart Benton made the railways nightmarish is also easily recognised.

Edward Hopper, perhaps better known from the Tom Waits semi-immortalisation of his 'Nighthawks' (of course, "at the Diner", if you're a fan), also painted the rails, and his 1929 'Railroad Sunset' is sumptuous and gorgeous. But it is seeing all of the various media - the photographs, the pencil sketches, the paintings and posters - in one place that truly marks how much of an impact the railways made, pretty much on the whole of the world.

Capping off the whole exhibit was the chance meeting with a couple of old friends, whom we may now get the chance to see again, so all in all, it was a day well spent.

It's a superb exhibit (if a bit steeply priced at $8 per person), and it won't be there for much longer, so if you have a chance, stop in and see it before its departure on 18 January. Or you can invest in the companion book, The Railway: Art in the Age of Steam. Either way, if you enjoy good art or railways, you won't be sorry.

Daylight Astronomy: Viewing Venus

While I'm battling against some sort of incipient virus, I'll recount something from the past few days in an effort to fool the virus into thinking that I don't know that it's there. Specifically: practising astronomy during daylight hours.

You thought that you needed night's soft shroud to see stars and planets? As it happens, that isn't the case. Some high-magnitude stars are visible with a sufficiently large telescope during daylight, if you know where to look, and all of the Classical planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) can been seen during daylight (as long as they are in the sky at the time), even with the naked eye.

Last Wednesday, the Amateur Astronomer, during a lull in the well quiet New Year's Eve shopping day, decided to step outside with our newly-received Celestron SkyMaster 9x63 Binocular and attempt to find Venus. It was particularly easy on that day: against a pale blue and crystal clear sky, the sliver of a moon was more than enough to point the way to the faint dot of light that was Venus (the photo that I found, however, is from 2007; on 31 December 2008, Venus was lower in the sky relative to the Moon). Once you've spotted it with binoculars, it can be found fairly readily with the naked eye. The trick, of course, is to find something in the sky which is near to the planet that you want to see - otherwise, it's so faint as to be almost impossible to detect without a computer-driven telescope mount.

As it happens, a preternaturally thrifty member of my family had picked up a battered second-hand refractor telescope somewhere during the summer, for the princely sum of $1. It was missing an eyepiece, as I was told, so I took it in to the store yesterday to see how much it might cost to put it in working order.

There is a rule, however, that "free" things sometimes end up being the most expensive. After finding the 'scope online and comparing the original fixtures and fittings appertaining thereto, it turned out that not only was I missing an eyepiece, but a diagonal (which was vital to getting the focal length right), two eyepieces, and a spotting scope. So much for "free". A mere $90 later, I can restore the $150 'scope to operational status. Or I could buy a new reflector for ten dollars more, with a bigger aperture, and be done with it. The latter option, of course, would rob me the of the pleasure of deciding how to hack the thing myself, though.

But what the Amateur Astronomer did find, after suprisingly little playing, was that the scope turned out to do a bang-up job at giving us a view of Venus once again. The sky yesterday had some high, wispy clouds floating around it, and the sun was almost too much for my contact lens-wearing eyes. It worked anyway. With the 17mm eyepiece (a super-cheap Orion number), the shadow on the planet was plainly visible, at 3pm. Switching for the 6mm eyepiece, despite some chromatic aberrance, you almost felt that you could see the sickly yellow colour of Venus' cloud cover.

Now, therefore, I will be a convert to the potential of daylight astronomy. If you want to try it, find a copy of some basic astronomy software, like Orion's Starry Night, Celestron's The Sky, or any of the various freeware / shareware applications out there, feed in your information, and then go outside. You might be surprised at what you will find!


EDIT: Forgot to append my thanks to the Earth & Sky blog and the SkyMania Log for their postings on this topic. And thanks, of course, as always go to the Amateur Astronomer for putting up with a lot of very stupid questions from yours truly. One day, I'll understand telescopes better - promise.

01 January 2009

Successes and Failures

Well, here we are again. Did you have a good New Year's? I hope that it was suitably festive, and that you were as happy as you could be in these difficult times.

This is something of a lightweight entry, because I'm still trying to finish up some more essay-length pieces on which I've been working, but my hiatus plays neatly into something that I've thinking about.

I don't really make Resolutions at the New Year. Never been able to keep them, never see the point. But I had some hopes for the beastly year of 2008, and thought that I'd just review them, while enjoying a few old episodes of QI (sadly, one with the much-missed Linda Smith is playing right now - damn, was she ever funny). Here goes...

Successes

  • House reorganisation: I can't entirely take credit for this, but the house is more or less in order. Rooms are organised, although there are a couple closets that still need work, and a few other small tasks, and the basement (oh, dear, the basement...), but on the whole, that counts as a success.

  • The Beagle Web Store: Like so many things, this is a work in progress, but it's up and running, so hooray for me.


Failures

  • Blog entries: I'd come up with the arbitrary number of entries that I wanted to have done for the year - that number was 200. Missed it by a bit. For 2009, I'm setting the bar at 250, and we'll see what happens.

  • Reading: I have this number in my head again - I want to read at least sixty books in a year. I think that this year I'll end up around thirty-five. I started a hell of a lot more, but, at the end of the day, I'm a slow reader. I'm going to have a bash at it again, though.

  • Book reviews: Again, I'd wanted to review at least two books per month over at Science Books Reviewed, and I've fallen well short of that. So more work to do there. I've got more books and reviews in the pipeline already: we'll see how it goes.


I'm sure that there are other things to note in this context, but, for the moment, I'll leave it there. Back to not reading, not writing, and lazing about all the long day. Until next time, gentle reader.